Time for accountability

Outside investigation of Hampton's cigarette operation is long past due

October 20, 2012

Although many aspects of Hampton Police Division's undercover cigarette trafficking business remain a blur, two concerns have emerged with disturbingly sharp focus: First, it appears this operation was conducted without the basic financial controls that apply to every other government bank account. Secondly, there are serious questions as to whether a local police agency even has the authority to conduct a "churning" operation of the sort Hampton police were using in an attempt to capture cigarette bootleggers.

More than $3 million flowed through the bank account set up under the direction of Hampton Police Chief Charles R. Jordan to handle funds of bogus cigarette company Blue Water Tobacco. Initially, Hampton had working jointly with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, but when the federal agency pulled out, Hampton police kept the operation going.

Hampton's operation, which yielded no pursuable criminal charges, appears to have had few guidelines and little oversight.

On Wednesday, Chief Jordan was placed on administrative leave pending external reviews of the Hampton police operation. The City of Hampton has hired an outside accounting firm to review the operation's finances and a law firm specializing in local government to review its policies and procedures.

It's about time. The finances of this operation are extremely sketchy, with many, if not most, of the account entries not documented with receipts or identified as to purpose. Let's hope the accounting firm can shed light on the mysterious transactions that took place during the 19-month operation.

The city is also requesting an opinion from the Virginia Attorney General as to whether local police agencies have the authority to engage in such churning operations. In other words, the city is asking for guidance on whether the Hampton Police Division had any authority to run the Blue Water operation in the first place.

Attorney General opinions are not binding decisions but are intended to serve as official advice to a locality in the application of Virginia law to various government activities. Most often these opinions are sought to clear up an issue before the fact, not after.

While the Attorney General's opinion will have significant impact on all local agencies engaged in churning operations, some of the Hampton-specific questions should have been asked 18 months ago, when city attorney Cynthia Hudson and city manager Mary Bunting first got a whiff of the activity. Both have confirmed Chief Jordan approached them about the possibility of the city's accepting a monetary "gift" from a private tobacco company to fund an undercover police operation. After those conversations, in April 2011 the Hampton City Council passed an ordinance amending its gift policies in order to allow the city manager to accept gifts for public safety purposes.

The city council likely had no idea the amendment was intended to apply to a police investigation that had already been under way for nine months.It was police work; the public and the City Council were apparently on a need-to-know basis.

Why wouldn't Ms. Bunting and Ms. Hudson have asked more questions about the operation in early 2011 when they apparently learned for the first time police were or would be handling an undercover bank account? Did they really believe the city of Hampton had no interest in knowing whether such an operation was legal and whether accounting procedures were in place?

It's laudable that the city has finally taken steps to obtain outside investigations of the Blue Water Tobacco operation and that Chief Jordan has been placed on leave pending the outcomes of those investigations. Despite Ms. Bunting's claim that there has already been an external review, the state police's finding that three officers had not engaged in criminal activity is hardly a comprehensive audit of the operation itself.

In her Oct. 17 statement, Ms. Bunting said once the reports are obtained, she will "fully brief the public" and "take disciplinary actions, if warranted." She also said she is "fully committed … to being transparent at the appropriate time."

The citizens of Hampton deserve to know not only whether their police division acted appropriately, but whether other city officials should have taken steps to ensure greater accountability. If this operation was tainted, no one who touched it should be exempt from evaluation.

The public also deserves transparency all the time, not just when it's "appropriate."

Once again we ask the uncomfortable but necessary questions: Who in Hampton is accountable for what happened in this cigarette sting? Whose heads should roll?